Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighter For The Indian Navy - Updates & Discussions

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by Agent_47, Jan 28, 2017.

  1. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    2,431
    Exactly and why would we need to do a nuclear strike from a carrier for Pakistan, when we have plenty of stationary, mobile and air platforms in India itself, not the mention INs subs? The Arihant SSBN will primarily pose a threat to Pakistan and if we can fit Scorpenes in future with Nirbhay or Brahmos M, things get even better, but a naval fighter is the least thing we need for that purpose!
     
  2. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,781
    Likes Received:
    5,498
    Country Flag:
    France
    The direction of the attack is much more inaccurate if it can come from a plane carrier. An aircraft carrier also allows gesticulation, and much more resources must be mobilized to destroy an aircraft carrier than to destroy a land base whose coordinates are known. In addition destroy an enemy aircraft carrier can justify the use of the nuclear weapon, this one then loses its strategic character and becomes tactical.
     
    Techy and surya kiran like this.
  3. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    9,715
    Likes Received:
    4,712
    A major attack on a carrier, or even a major threat to a carrier from conventional weapons can imply we can go nuclear.

    For example, if an adversary threatens an American carrier to the point where sinking is a possibility, then they are authorized to use nukes to protect the fleet.
     
    Sancho likes this.
  4. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    2,431
    That's doesn't make sense, since the effort to destroy a single carrier is logically much less, than taking out numerous fixed and mobile land based missile launchers, besides the multiple IAF air bases that can be used for a nuclear strike, which easily adds up to 100 targets. So simple math tells us, 1 target is easier than 100.
    Moreover, you don't have to destroy the carrier, you only need the approximate location, to know from which area a possible fighter attack would take place and to intercept is the fighter!

    The carrier is a big target that can't be hidden, that makes the fighter more vulnerable for detection and interception as well and automatically reduces the chances of mission success.
    The opposite is the case, when you use a submarine, since it's very hard to detect itself, the missile is even smaller than a fighter, which also adds to less detectability and the fact that you can launch it even in close proximity increases the surprise for the enemy and reduces the reaction time, therefore high probability of success of the mission!
     
  5. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    2,431
    We are not talking about being attacked, but about the best way of doing a nuclear attack for IN and that is sub launched missiles in any case. But otherwise you are right.
     
  6. surya kiran

    surya kiran 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2011
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    274
    Country Flag:
    India
    Depends on multiple scenarios and decisions taken at the political level and escalation matrix.

    A possible scenario
    Indian armour thrust is countered by a tactical nuke. Indian policy makers take a decision to strike at military target but not on the mainland. They decide to attack and destroy the security cordon around Karachi off the coast with a tactical nuke. The target is mobile. A SLBM will be overkill. A tactical nuke will be required to take out the target. Here an aircraft carrier launched platform avoids detection and has a straight line path to the target.
     
  7. zebra7

    zebra7 Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    922
    Country Flag:
    India
    1. Cruise missile don't fly straight to the target, rather follow the preplanned route based on navigation point, and even reaching target, they don't approach target in straight line.

    2. Operation of Carrier battle group cost money, which is very high and is not meant for such tactical attack, rather is meant for Power projection, and provide a mobile airbase.

    3. Tactical nuke against Indian armour thrust is a fluke, which Pakistan is playing.

    4. Having a nuclear tipped weapon on a carrier, means any attack from the cruise missile or depressed trajectory attack, would be treated as a potential nuclear strike by the enemy, thus could easily triggered the nuclear war. Thus India have only Ballastic missile for the Strategic deterance declared. All cruise missile, whether Brahmos or Nirbhay would be only declared nuclear capable and not nuclear armed. However Strategic deal with the france using their ASMPA/Scalp for the nuclear dilevery platform will and should remain undeclared, unofficial, and secret.

    5. Similarly the nuclear weapon kept for the deterance should be with the Submarine based since these types of weapons are for the deterance only. We cannot compare it with the European, whose deterance plan was against the USSR, including the usage of the nuclear weapon in the tactical ground also.
     
  8. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    2,431
    You don't need a ballistic missile that's true, but would use a cruise missile with a smaller nuclear payload => Brahmos or Nirbhay.
    However, the prime factor for the platform is mission success and that as explained before is always in favour of a sub launched cruise missile, rather then sending a fighter from a carrier.

    Besides, we would most likely use the same missiles but with conventional warheads for such a mission, because any attack with a nuclear payload will respond in similar, therefor can only be the last option.
     
  9. somedude

    somedude Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    908
    Country Flag:
    Afghanistan
    Okay you didn't understand what I was talking about.

    Remember: the purpose of nuclear weapons is to not be actually used. If you nuke someone, you already lost. The entire game is in threatening to nuke, but keeping just short of actually doing it. It's a game of chicken called brinkmanship.

    So if you move a visible nuclear vector, you're sending a strong signal but you're not starting a war. If you fire a nuke missile from a sub, you're not playing chicken anymore, you're just playing nuclear war. And with that game, like the movie said, "the only way to win is not to play".
     
    PARIKRAMA likes this.
  10. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    2,431
    And as I said before, the thread then is the CBG not a fighter, since the enemy can't see what weapons the fighter has on it's radar. If it gets close to enemy air space, it will be intercepted, that's it.

    Take the USN for example, they sent a CBG towards North Korea as a signal, but the threat is not any fighter of the carrier, but the subs that comes with the CBG, or the B2 bombers and stealth fighters in that region, because the enemy can't counter them.
     
  11. somedude

    somedude Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    908
    Country Flag:
    Afghanistan
    Yes. It doesn't matter what the actual vector is -- ALCM or SLCM -- the point is to show off your muscles, something that you couldn't do with just a hidden sub alone.
     
  12. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    2,431
    And i have no disagreement on that, as I said from the start. I only say, that IN wouldn't use a fighter for a nuclear strike, but sub launched missiles, for the mentioned benefits.
     
  13. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    2,431
    Some indirect news on the Mig:

    http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/mig-has-big-hopes-mig-35-fighter

    If the Russians are only offering that for the Mig 29Ks, they won't stand a chance.
     
  14. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,679
    Likes Received:
    13,291
    Country Flag:
    India
    Any deck based twin engine fighter must have very high L/D ratio in any config to be able to lift highest payload from deck, whether it is STOBAR or CATOBAR. The Alpha to be maintained in case of single engine must also be as low as possible to allow for faster acceleration to safety speeds. My study about TE LSA has led me to believe that we can design aircraft which are most optimal for STOBAR decks. Please remember that till date, we have had aircraft specifically designed for land ops being adopted for deck and to over come the load penalty, CAT was introduced. The Induction of CAT created a big load on ship engines and also the failure of CAT or cold launch resulted in aircraft ditching. On many occasions the whole CBG was not able to launch or recover aircraft due to failure of CAT.
    I am midway thru my study on effectiveness of CAT vs STO carriers and till now it shows that given the kind of failures involved for both the types, STOBAR carrier has an edge.
    What are the advantages of a CATOBAR,
    • Launch velocity to lift highest payload is not a problem.
    • In case of engine failure during launch, the aircraft will still achieve its safety speed and recover back by dumping stores.
    • A comparatively smaller aircraft can lift higher loads with lower powered engines.
    What are the disadvantages of a CATOBAR?
    • Failure of CAT.
    • Cold launch.
    • Failure of nose wheel system of the aircraft.
    • Lower launch rate as the aircraft needs about one minute before another can be launched from CAT.
    What are the advantages of STOBAR for an aircraft specifically designed for such ops?
    • No restriction on payload just as CATOBAR.
    • One engine failure during launch can allow the aircraft to stop upto a limit.
    • No restriction on flight ops as the STOBAR is a fixed structure which can't fail.
    • STOBAR has better battle survivability compared to CATOBAR.
    • It allows for very small aircraft carriers to carry a larger number of aircraft and multiply its effectiveness by larger sortie rate.
    • The launch rate is higher as the aircraft can do stream take off one after the other without having to engage gear restraining system.
    • The overall cost of operations for STOBAR is much lower.
    • We can create pocket Carriers which will be more effective compared to any big CATOBAR carrier and have the ability to field more carriers with larger aircraft fleet size and more survivability.
    • The ships will need very low powered power plants as the need to feed CAT is not there resulting in better range with a smaller size.
    What are the disadvantages of STOBAR?
    • Its needs aircraft specially tailored for ops like lower wing loading and high TWR.
    • The aircraft can stop only upto a limit after that in case of one engine failure, it will neither be able to jettison loads till it exits deck nor be able to recover on SE due to failure to achieve its take off safety speed. The aircraft will have to ditch.
    Based on my analysis and also study of various on board failures during launch from CATOBAR/STOBAR carriers, I have found multiple examples of launch failures from CATOBAR and ZERO in case of STOBAR. Infact USN has till date not lost an aircraft due to engine failure on take off, same as anyother STOBAR carrier operated by Russia, India and China or any other nation but they have lost many for failure of CAT/ cold launch or nose gear failure during launch. if we look at percentage based on flight hours, STOBAR Carriers have a much higher safety and success rate compared to CATOBAR. I have not analysed the recovery as it is same for both types.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2017
    zebra7, Dagger, kurup and 1 other person like this.
  15. Flyboy!

    Flyboy! Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    403
    Country Flag:
    India
    At least for Indian Navy, STOBAR is the best option in terms of lower costs and maintenance. Maintenance of a catapult requires massive resources.
     
    Dagger and vstol jockey like this.

Share This Page